Friday, December 04, 2009

Global warming and the media

MRC asks, "For the fourteenth straight day, the three broadcast networks have failed to report on the great and growing ClimateGate scandal on their weekday morning or evening news programs. How to explain this?"

Leftist bias might be one answer. Democratic Party laptdogs might be another. Irresponsibility or lack of professionalism and journalistic integrity could be yet another answer.

Maybe all of the above? They remind me of the three monkeys with their hands over their eyes, ears and mouth: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil (evil being defined as news which is inconvenient to the Democratic Party).

A free press is the backbone of a free society. But what happens when the free press refuses to report the news?


b said...

Before I begin, let me note that the three networks have not been has silent on the issue as the author of this blog suggests. Until you recognize that the three major media broadcasters DID carry the story.
For example:
NBC may have less vocal, but MSNBC covered it too-
In addition, if anyone's tuned in to CNN news network, often not-so-affectionately called the "Communist News Network" or the "Clinton News Network," you may have noticed that ClimateGate is actually getting a fair amount of coverage. “Fair” is the key word. It’s covered. It’s getting at-length discussion, but it's not being blown out of proportion.
While there is going to be bias on either side (see Fox News), the media has covered this issue appropriately. They have correctly recognized that this "scandal," appalling as it might be, only deals with a small number of the scholars involved with global warming. Even if the data from the University of East Anglia was thrown out the window, there would be enough from NASA.
The media has covered this issue appropriately. They have acknowledged the situation, discussed it further when appropriate. They have not covered it as a large-scale conspiracy because it is not.
Alarmist coverage would be the true crime. We have more than enough evidence aside from a few corrupt thinkers to show that global warming is happening. Overcoverage could potentially give reason to an groundless fear which would lead to inaction. Let us seize the moment as we move towards Copenhagen.

Dennis said...

I loved the first response the introduction made by George Stephanopoulos. It pretty much summarized the entire issue in a nutshell: "We're being asked to wager trillions of dollars and substantially curtailed freedom on climate models that are imperfect and unproven."

That statement says it all.

But regarding your point: Your argument would be more convincing if the date of the broadcasts were more apparent. The CBS video, for example, made reference to protests at the start of the Copenhagen Summit. In other words, that news cast was VERY recent, probably after the MRC study was completed. You're going to have to produce something that is dated in order to disprove the MRC statement.

Besides, one discussion on a CBS discussion show, for example, hardly constitutes the coverage such a major story deserves. The same goes for the other networks.

Second, regarding your statement about having more than enough evidence about global warming happening--that is precisely what is under debate. Someone once described East Anglia as the "Pentagon" of the whole climate debate. If evidence is being doctored there, why wouldn't we want to investigate this whole scandal further before we give up trillions more dollars and more of our freedom?

Besides, it was not that many years ago when Newsweek ran a cover story about the problem of global cooling!

Third, the real issue is not whether there is global warming (or climate change) anyway. The real issue is whether the problem is man-made and whether the the trillions of dollars we spend on the problem and the loss of freedom that comes with it, will produce any significant change anyway. The answer is, NO it won't! But what it will do, it substantially increase the control our government has over our lives, and, as I understand it, may even weaken U.S. sovereignty.

I would think that such a huge story would be covered more extensively by the media, unless, of course, they have agendas other than just covering the news.